The Federal Bailout of AIG - Hearing before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION Serial No. 111-10

AIG\u27s Impact on the Global Economy: Before, During, and After Federal Intervention

Serial No. 111– 1

Doc. No. 231: Choctaw Academy

This report regarding the Choctaw Academy was completed and presented to the U.S. House of Representatives by J.C. Spencer, Secretary of War. It includes information regarding the number of students for each year since the opening and amount of money expended annually for their education. It is made up of the following parts: Letter from J.C. Spencer, Secretary of War to John White, Speaker of the House of Representatives, May 17, 1842 Letter from W.B. Lewis, Treasury Dept. to Thomas Crawford, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, May 13, 1842 Statement showing the amount expended by the US in support & education of Indian youths at the Choctaw academy, Kentucky, 1825-1841 Statement showing the number of Indian youths education at the Choctaw academy, by quarter, 1826-1841 Recapitulation showing amount paid in each year, 1825-1842 Letter from T. Hartley Crawford, Office of Indian Affairs to J.C. Spencer, Secretary of War, May 16, 1842 Letter from T. Hartley Crawford to D. Vanderslice, Choctaw Academy, Kentucky Extract of letter from Commission of Indian Affairs to R.M. Johnson, March 14, 1842 Letter from T. Hartley Crawford to Col. P.P. Pitchlynn, March 22, 1842 Letter from T. Hartley Crawford to D. Vanderslice, March 22, 1842 Letter from T. Hartley Crawford to Maj. Wm. Armstrong, Choctaw Agency, March 24, 1842 The academy included children from the Creek, Pottawatomie, Osage, Miami, Quapaw, Seminoles, Iowa, Sac, Fox, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Ottawa, Chippewa tribes as well as the Choctaw tribe. Read the entire report here.https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/exhibit_2017/1037/thumbnail.jp

Rep. No. 193: Choctaw Academy in Kentucky

Report regarding the Choctaw Academy in Kentucky made by Thomas Hart Benton of the Committee on Indians Affairs. It consists of the following items: Letter from T. Hartley Crawford, Office of Indian Affairs to J.M. Hughes, House of Representatives, January 27, 1845 Letter from O. P. Rood, Choctaw Academy to W.S. Crawford, Choctaw Academy, Oct. 21, 1841 Report of Board of Inspectors, April 1, 1842 Letter from Board of Inspectors to John C. Spencer, Secretary of War, Oct. 5, 1842 Report of Board of Inspectors December 31, 1843 Letter from Wm. Suggett, Inspector Choctaw Academy to John C. Spencer, January 14, 1843 Report of Wm. Suggett, December 30, 1843 Letter from Wm. Suggett to William Wilkins, Secretary of War, July 1, 1844 Report of Wm. Suggett to William Wilkins, December 31, 1844 Letter from F. Joyce to W.P. Thomason, November 24, 1844 Letter from Rh. M. Johnson to Col. Cave Johnson, January 8, 1845 Letter from Richard Thomason to Col. D. Vanderslice, Choctaw Academy, January 10, 1845 Affadavit of Nelson Thomason, January 10, 1845 Affadavit of Thomasons, January 10, 1845 Receipt of Sandford Branham to Col. R.M. Johnson, January 18, 1845 Read the entire report.https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/exhibit_2017/1038/thumbnail.jp

THE EXTENT OF SOCIAL REGULATION: HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUP AND THE REAGAN IDEOLOGY

Social regulation resolves the conflict over who will bear the costs of production-related harm to public health, safety, and the environment. The extent of social regulation reflects the political power of affected interests, the economic consequences of control, and the prevailing regulatory ideol- ogy. In this paper, I analyze the impact of the Reagan deregulatory ideology on implementation of the Superfund program to cleanup hazardous waste sites. Itesolution of the conflict over enabling legislation is examined to gauge the relative political power of Superfund Act supporters. Resolution of the ronflict over implementation is examined to determine the extent to which these same political forces limited the success of the Reagan ideology in promoting regulatory inaction. Copyright 1988 by The Policy Studies Organization.